3 ms·

What I see far too often in these debates is the following: Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!

What I see far too often in these debates is the following: Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!" And the debate rolls on and on about whether we can prove P or not. I am not blaming Person B, but the question I want to put to them is this: Can you prove that whatever you are doing now works? Or is it just a case of you feel it works for you?

plinkplonk 17y ago
"Can you prove that whatever you are doing now works? Or is it just a case of you feel it works for you?" Good Question. Another question is "Do you go around calling legendary programmers who don't use your practices, yet ship product, "Stone Age Programmers"? Or the questioning of your favorite practice X as "X derangement syndrome"? If so why?
- raganwald 17y ago
  My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines, so I am disinclined to pursue this line of discussion. But if it amuses you, consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming. For that matter, consider the question of whether we are still in the stone age. I am inclined to say we are remarkably unenlightened. Some people ship without process, we don't really know why other than to make vague statement like "they're legends." Others have process but fail to ship and we again don't fully understand why. Although our tools are concrete, our application of them seems to be a mystery with very little hard research or true science behind it.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines," Oh I never said or implied you did. That is why I phrased my comment as "Another question . I unreservedly apologise if anything i wrote here I gave that impression. ", consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming." but those are not the people being addressed as "stone Age programmers". The people interviewed in CaW (which is how this hole brouhaha started in the first place) and Joel Spolsky are hardly "Stone Age" programmers just because they don't "evolve design" using TDD. As per Bob Martin , people who don't use TDD are "Stone age". People who question the value of TDD are "deranged". This sounds like religious fanaticism to me. To extend your original comment. "Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!"" Person A replies "That is because you are a deranged Stone Age Programmer".
    - raganwald 17y ago
      Well, Robert can say whatever he wants about people and you are welcome to disparage him for it, God bless you both. But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue. My question is about people who reject some things for lack of empirical justification while accepting others without such justification. If you want to piggy-back off my question to criticize famous consultants, how about asking whether Robert Martin is actually Person B and not Person A? I haven't read his work in enough detail to comment one way or another, but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification.
      - plinkplonk 17y ago
        " But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue." I never said it did (I am saying this the second time). You have a right to your opinion. You were using a rhetorical device to put forward an opinion. So was I. I wasn't aware it was somehow offensive, especially since I made it clear I was borrowing the device and not attacking your points and apologised for any inadvertent impressions to the contrary. . If that still offends you ... [shrug] whatever. "I haven't read his work in enough detail" I have. "but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification." Fair enough. With that, I exit this thread in the interests of harmony and not wasting time hairsplitting.
        raganwald 17y ago
        I didn't take offense, nor did I actually argue against your point. I was aiming for vigorously trying to drag the thread it back to my point. I can understand your desire to call Mr. Martin to task for making bone-headed statements. I would join you, however I have made enough of my own mistakes that I have very little room for other people in the part of my brain devoted to bone-headed writing.
silentbicycle 17y ago
The debate would be more useful for all involved if it were re-framed in terms of asking what problems TDD is well-suited to, rather than arguing over whether it's (implicitly, always) a net win or not. (This is also true for many other techniques, I think.)
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Another similar, and superficially easy, improvement in the level of conversation would be if, instead of claiming X "sucks" or "rocks" in absolute terms, people ranked things against other known items. For example, if you think unit testing is generally good but TDD is a bad idea then give some context to that: is TDD worse than no unit tests at all? Is it worse than low unit test coverage say 20, 30, 40%? Or off at a tangent TDD makes Java programming feel like Ruby (or vice versa), just something for people to intellectually grab onto in terms of scale. I ask because not unit testing at all seems (to me) to be further from unit testing than TDD is, yet from this current discussion it would appear that unit test fans have more issues with the latter than the former.
- billswift 17y ago
  It would also be useful if people would be more explicit and specific about the techniques they are actually discussing. Consider, for example, the earlier comments about confusing or conflating TDD and unit testing.
  - silentbicycle 17y ago
    Part of the reason the debate is muddled is that TDD forces one to use unit / regression testing. People promoting TDD often take credit for the benefits of those, when evaluating TDD alone concerns whether writing tests upfront as a design technique is actually better, provided tests are still written.

plinkplonk 17y ago

"Can you prove that whatever you are doing now works? Or is it just a case of you feel it works for you?" Good Question. Another question is "Do you go around calling legendary programmers who don't use your practices, yet ship product, "Stone Age Programmers"? Or the questioning of your favorite practice X as "X derangement syndrome"? If so why?

raganwald 17y ago
My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines, so I am disinclined to pursue this line of discussion. But if it amuses you, consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming. For that matter, consider the question of whether we are still in the stone age. I am inclined to say we are remarkably unenlightened. Some people ship without process, we don't really know why other than to make vague statement like "they're legends." Others have process but fail to ship and we again don't fully understand why. Although our tools are concrete, our application of them seems to be a mystery with very little hard research or true science behind it.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines," Oh I never said or implied you did. That is why I phrased my comment as "Another question . I unreservedly apologise if anything i wrote here I gave that impression. ", consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming." but those are not the people being addressed as "stone Age programmers". The people interviewed in CaW (which is how this hole brouhaha started in the first place) and Joel Spolsky are hardly "Stone Age" programmers just because they don't "evolve design" using TDD. As per Bob Martin , people who don't use TDD are "Stone age". People who question the value of TDD are "deranged". This sounds like religious fanaticism to me. To extend your original comment. "Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!"" Person A replies "That is because you are a deranged Stone Age Programmer".
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Well, Robert can say whatever he wants about people and you are welcome to disparage him for it, God bless you both. But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue. My question is about people who reject some things for lack of empirical justification while accepting others without such justification. If you want to piggy-back off my question to criticize famous consultants, how about asking whether Robert Martin is actually Person B and not Person A? I haven't read his work in enough detail to comment one way or another, but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      " But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue." I never said it did (I am saying this the second time). You have a right to your opinion. You were using a rhetorical device to put forward an opinion. So was I. I wasn't aware it was somehow offensive, especially since I made it clear I was borrowing the device and not attacking your points and apologised for any inadvertent impressions to the contrary. . If that still offends you ... [shrug] whatever. "I haven't read his work in enough detail" I have. "but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification." Fair enough. With that, I exit this thread in the interests of harmony and not wasting time hairsplitting.
      - raganwald 17y ago
        I didn't take offense, nor did I actually argue against your point. I was aiming for vigorously trying to drag the thread it back to my point. I can understand your desire to call Mr. Martin to task for making bone-headed statements. I would join you, however I have made enough of my own mistakes that I have very little room for other people in the part of my brain devoted to bone-headed writing.

silentbicycle 17y ago

The debate would be more useful for all involved if it were re-framed in terms of asking what problems TDD is well-suited to, rather than arguing over whether it's (implicitly, always) a net win or not. (This is also true for many other techniques, I think.)

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Another similar, and superficially easy, improvement in the level of conversation would be if, instead of claiming X "sucks" or "rocks" in absolute terms, people ranked things against other known items. For example, if you think unit testing is generally good but TDD is a bad idea then give some context to that: is TDD worse than no unit tests at all? Is it worse than low unit test coverage say 20, 30, 40%? Or off at a tangent TDD makes Java programming feel like Ruby (or vice versa), just something for people to intellectually grab onto in terms of scale. I ask because not unit testing at all seems (to me) to be further from unit testing than TDD is, yet from this current discussion it would appear that unit test fans have more issues with the latter than the former.
billswift 17y ago
It would also be useful if people would be more explicit and specific about the techniques they are actually discussing. Consider, for example, the earlier comments about confusing or conflating TDD and unit testing.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  Part of the reason the debate is muddled is that TDD forces one to use unit / regression testing. People promoting TDD often take credit for the benefits of those, when evaluating TDD alone concerns whether writing tests upfront as a design technique is actually better, provided tests are still written.